[MUD-Dev] DGN: Reasons for play [was: EmergentBehaviors spawnedfrom...]

[cruise]

John Buehler spake thusly...
> cruise writes:

>> Can "entertainment" be seperated from reward, or the seeking
>> behaviour? The presence of non-game forms of entertainment
>> suggests it can - but should it be in games? Isn't the
>> fundemental definition of a game something that involves
>> competition (against others, or the "environment" of the game
>> rules)? As such, victory, however it is defined, is inherently a
>> reward. And the game is the process of obtaining, or seeking,
>> that reward.

> For starters, the purpose of these pieces of software is not to
> function as a game but rather to delight players.  To entertain
> them.

This is possibly de-generating into semantic pedantry, but if my
goal was just to /entertain/ then I'd stick to writing stories. The
point, for me, is to create a /game/. I'm arguing that the
definition of a game is much broader than is usually accepted, and
includes much of what you mention below.

> If they are perceived as games, in the spirit of basketball or
> chess, then competition and achievement will dominate the
> experience - gaining a victory condition.

Absolutely, which is the point I'm trying to make. We can make games
that /aren't/ in the spirit of basketball and chess. They are,
unfortunately, the easiest examples of games for people to draw
from, which is why they get used most.

> Do all such activities overcome some challenge?  Yeah, sure.  They
> all accomplish a state change in the universe, and that inherently
> means that something else had to give in to the change.  So much
> for the academic analysis.  The important point here is not to
> focus on overcoming a challenge, but to delivering the delightful
> experience.

I'm writing this exactly /for/ the academic analysis. For me the
fundemental nature of games is competition. The entire "delightful
experience" is overcoming a challenge, of winning through
adversity. What we need to do is to find new challenges, that don't
involve fighting or direct competition. Socialisation is a challenge
- one of the most intricate and complex of games. There are, no
doubt, infinite ways to do it. But, at its core, a game is
competition. If there is no competition, it's a movie, or a story.

> Is the most important thing about teaching and learning that the
> student gains the lesson?  If so, then teaching could be broken
> down to handing a token over from teacher to student, and the
> student has 'learned'.  The achievement has been made.  If we want
> a better learning challenge, we make it so that the teaching and
> student have to kill 100 orcs.  Then the student can receive the
> token and 'learn'.

> Sounds silly, right?  Well the crafting systems of the MMOs that
> I've played are structured in much that way.  They're not about
> building anything, but rather about overcoming challenges.
> Primarily patience.

> So I don't want focus to fall on reaching a victory condition as a
> reward.  I want to focus on 'delight'.  It may sound
> touchy-feely-abstract, but it ensures that nobody is going to try
> to quantify how the MMO is going to achieve the end of player
> delight.  In teaching, the ability of the teacher to instill 'aha'
> moments in the student is the main point of delight.  But their
> bonding as two people is perhaps just as important.

In my spare time I am actually trying to create a formal description
of "fun." A game algebra, if you will, which allows you to analyse
the challenges it includes. There is a huge body of material on how
to better achieve those "aha" moments, or bond with people. While
/applying/ those techniques still requires skill and natural
ability, it is not an ethereal, un-analysable thing. There are
understandable principles behind it.

>> So again, the onus is us as game designers to provide different
>> rewards. The distinction between this, and John Buehler's (and my
>> own thoughts) above is that players should be free to pursue "the
>> goal" /however they like/. The game designers, however, provide
>> "the goal" itself, and the context in which it is acheived. We
>> provide the tools and materials, the players make what they want.
>> However, if what the players make is always shoddy and falls
>> apart, then it is time to take a look at the tools and materials
>> we're giving them (not simply banning said shoddy items from
>> being made, which seems to be the usual response in many MMO's to
>> "exploits").

> Hopefully I'm just repeating what you just said when I say:

Yes, absolutely. I'd just like to have a more logical basis behind
the decisions I'm making when designing a game.

--
[ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ]
  "quantam sufficit"
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev